World Peace

[BackToBasics]

Budgie was thinking the other day, if world peace was to come about, would it actually work? Let Budgie explain...

Most living organisms have predators that are above them in the food chain, that keep that particular species' population in check. Now, it occured to Budgie that humans dont have one..we are supposedly at the top of the chain.

So what keeps our species numbers down?

What is our population control?

Budgie thinks it may be ourselves. There's a need for hate, anger and war he believes, because otherwise things would get worse..humans would overrun the planet, and he doesnt think he has to tell anybody what would happen after that..worldwide famine, mass extinctions, the works.

What does swiy think?

[stoneinfocus]

what about birth control and th eplante could take about 2x the populaiton if everything was equally partitioned?

Look at america, how much space there is and africa, we have so many other problems than overpopualtion at the moment and these kinds of thoughts.
-Like, why does my harddiskdrive runs only without getting stuck, when I before let some older files run until they don´t get stuck?

Is it worth buying bath sandals for 27 bucks or should I stick with 9,99$ ?

[hh339]

I think that if there were peace throughout the whole world, I would gladly blow my brains out if the world was getting overpopulated and it was my time to go and leave room for a younger person.

[D.U.M.B]

Originally Posted by hh339

I think that if there were peace throughout the whole world, I would gladly blow my brains out if the world was getting overpopulated and it was my time to go and leave room for a younger person.

Theres a team player right there.

World peace would not work because there's always one to run it for everybody.

[Heretic.Ape.]

This agressive reaction to being "crowded" as it were is characteristic of pretty much any living thing. Once there are too many rats in a cage they will become violent and start ripping eachother apart; too many people crowded together and violence erupts. Perhaps when a whole population is faced with catastophe the back up "plan" is to let them fight it out in a Darwinian "survival of the fittest" so that not only is population kept in check but those members with the greatest chance of survival are the ones to perpetuate?
Of course speaking of it in terms like "plan" and "purpose" is reification of processes. A soap bubble doesn't form a sphere due to a plan, it is just the most efficient shape.

[geophagus]

Originally Posted by heretic.ape.

This agressive reaction to being "crowded" as it were is characteristic of pretty much any living thing. Once there are too many rats in a cage they will become violent and start ripping eachother apart; too many people crowded together and violence erupts.

That is an interesting theory, and it is certainlly something that plays out with rats in cages, but I have not seen any evidence of this in human beings, with the exception being human beings being over crowded in cages like in an over crowded prison.

America is arguably one of the most violent places to live, however our population density is about 30 people for every square kilometer. Compare this to the two most populated countries China & India, and it appears what applies to the rats is not applying to humans, at least not to humans who are not in cages. China who has a population density of 136 people per square kilometer, and India who has a population density of 328 people per square kilometer are both less violent than the USA.

The average world population density is 43 people per square kilometer, so the USA is still well below the world average, but yet the USA is much more violent than the world average.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...lation_density

In my opinion, the connection to rats and humans in your theory has everything to do with a rat or a human that's in an over-crowded cage. Some organisms exhibit violent behaviors after being crowded in captivity that are never exhibited, or rarely exhibited in the wild. For example, a male siamese fighting fish (sold in those tiny little fish bowls in pet stores) are quite violent towards other males of the same species. The males of that species will fight to the death when they are introduced into the same bowl, however, in the wild the males never kill each other.

[BackToBasics]

Co-incidence - If the world population were to double, maybe there is enough space to take a few more billion..but why would we want to do that? The planet would get raped even more than it does now..

Humans are so selfish and full of greed if they think that they can take anything they want and disregard all the other factors..hence the reason we need war, anger, hate, etc..to protect the planet an d everything on it from us.

[stoneinfocus]

Yes, that´s true, one has to differ and compare to what is possible and how the current state of being is like and compares to the theoretical possibilities.

And out of convenience, we rather go the old ways and suport those that offer a "solution" so we don´t have to think about it anymore or get it done ourselves.

Then, when someomne wants to make a change, he´s killed and argued by the conservatives, that things could be much worse, which is of course always a possbility.

One would be surprisd how well things would work if just noone cared about most of the things that are
supposed to be principal in ethics and religion and polititcs, that are more on the fanatic side.

Even "climate-change" is a big balloney compared to poverty, deseases and unjustice and military violence.

[The Doors]

War doesn't control the world's population, if anything it only rises it. There have been wars for thousands of years, I've heard somewhere that the world's population should be around 12billion people. This planet will not be able to support that if we do not take a green turn throughout the world - there is no other way. Not only the planet, but humanity also.

If world peace was actually there, I think people would be more focused on achieving what they want to do in a way that we can all work together as one, like it is intended. What has war really achieved instead of plunging people and the world into even more darkness. It fixed economical crisis and fed their egos by triumphing over dead corpses scattered all over, others preaching it was God's will when the only law that God tells us to follow is to love everyone - yet it's the only law we don't follow.

Do humans actually think they have the knowledge or capacity to decide who has the right to live or not?

[duppy conqueror]

"War is the father of everything" Heraclitus
I am not in favor of war in any way but as the great greek philosopher said if it werent for war(in a wider sense including human wars) nothing could exist.
War is a necessary "evil" which keeps the world going round.
Ancient civilizations had recognized the fact that its impossibe to live without war and thats why they made rules about it. for example in ancient india only certain castes participated in a war and the rest(farmers etc.) didnt. In ancient Greece women and children were not harmed in a war nor did they destroy the crops of a rival city etc
However war as it is practiced today is so inhuman i cant even think about it..

[stoneinfocus]

Originally Posted by duppy conqueror

"War is the father of everything" Heraclitus
I am not in favor of war in any way but as the great greek philosopher said if it werent for war(in a wider sense including human wars) nothing could exist.
War is a necessary "evil" which keeps the world going round.
Ancient civilizations had recognized the fact that its impossibe to live without war and thats why they made rules about it. for example in ancient india only certain castes participated in a war and the rest(farmers etc.) didnt. In ancient Greece women and children were not harmed in a war nor did they destroy the crops of a rival city etc
However war as it is practiced today is so inhuman i cant even think about it..

Yeah, bti how about the war in ourselfes.. of course we need to be prepared. that everythign tha possibly migh tgo wrong will go wrong and someone will attack us.

But aren´t we at a state where we could say war is absolutely useless and will kill is all and all achievements?

Isn´t being prepared for war enough?

were does war start and where does symbiosis begin, wher does wevoltion start and where is the cut between the price of destruction for the evolution to the better?

It´s all there and it´s all been done in perfection in WW2, by the ancient Rome by Caesar, by Napoleon and so it goes, but is this the wars that´s been pushing us forward? some did some didn´t some united countries and people in peace and some were terror ... but did we needed them really to be closer to ourselves?

[Trebor]

Thereb is far too much money invested in the arms industry. Too many jobs would be lost, armies would be dissolved, fdactorys would close. Global economy would be thrown off by unimaginable amounts of money. Even the local humble arms dealer would be fucked.

Theres enough death in this world without war.

[tayo]

If everyone on the planet had ecstasy and a little mushrooms all at once it might work.. and there would have to be world therapy sessions about once a week, after the whole world had therapy for a year, people might understand... but this won't happen and someone is always out to get power via fear tactics... so unfortunately no.

[Orchid_Suspiria]

World peace just isn't gonna happen,never has and never wiil.This is a good thing.Swim longs for the day when the ugliness of humanity is removed with lots of bright,pretty mushroom clouds.

[chemlove]

I believe that World peace would only work if, the entire population had a common cause for the peace (such as the saving of the planet and its natural resources). I think that in general that top 5% of the population would like to see the total population regress, and would also like to see (and profit) in the exploits of mother nature. So until these people do not have such power world peace would probably not work

[hh339]

Peace may not mean to others what it means to me/you. Even if there were global peace, what would we do if someone tried to break that peace? Kill?

[Salvinorin A]

If it wasn't for human nature (killing, wanting more than someone else...etc.), ideal communism would have worked. All that have tried to accomplish it pretty much failed because of human nature.

Someone would definitely break the peace. And it's not just killing, it's envy in general. If someone envy's another person's job, that's already a flaw in the global peace. People kill others cus they are unhappy, that's all (most of the time).

If you can make all 6 billion people in this world happy......you'll have global peace........I doubt it's coming any time soon.

I agree, it aint going to happen, unless our population sunk to about 10 people, then there's a chance.

Btw, natural population control is diseases. Cancer and AIDS, as soon as someone cures HIV for example....population is guaranteed to skyrocket.

Did anyone ever notice the coincidence in that? At the dawn of the sexual revolution (where everyone is breeding), a SEXUALLY transmitted disease with a 100% mortality happens to fly around the world........hmmmm...interesting.

Peace.
Sal-A

[Yukio Mishima]

Humans need pluralistic agonism to spur them to action. War is undesirable because, obviously, it is destructive, but the threat of it is good. Competition with other states is a motivator. It is no coincidence that there was a swell in technological innovation during the Cold War.